Debate Now MIT Analysis of Voting Machine "Fraud" Analysis Thread.

[JimBowie1958]

I also found this critique of Dr Shivas analysis on Medium.com

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai & The Danger Of Data Charlatans

Election Fraud in Michigan? Nope: just how lines work

kabir-naim.medium.com

According to the good doctor, the pattern you’d expect if there was just normal negative sentiment towards Trump is this flat line: ​

To Dr. Shiva, this discrepancy is evidence of algorithmic foul play. To him, the negatively sloped line we see is a clear sign that the state of Michigan used the “weighted race” voting feature of vote-tallying machines to steal votes from Trump and grant them to Biden.​

​

The thing is, that you’d always expect the negatively sloping line that he describes as “suspicious”, by definition. Think about what he’s plotting. On the X-axis is the % of straight-ticket Republican voters. On the Y-axis is the % of split-ticket Trump voters MINUS the % of straight-ticket Republican voters....​

​

A thought exercise: assume that nobody on a split-ticket ever votes for the major two parties, and they all go third-party like true independents. What would you expect from Ayyadurai’s curve? It would just go down and to the right, by design.​

​

And if a dude is artificially constructing a negatively sloped line in front of your eyes and telling you that this “beautiful, too-perfect line!” is evidence of election fraud, you should run the other way. Because he’s trying to take advantage of your good intentions.​

 

[flacaltenn]

I also found this critique of Dr Shivas analysis on Medium.com

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai & The Danger Of Data Charlatans

Election Fraud in Michigan? Nope: just how lines work

kabir-naim.medium.com

According to the good doctor, the pattern you’d expect if there was just normal negative sentiment towards Trump is this flat line: ​

View attachment 423990​

To Dr. Shiva, this discrepancy is evidence of algorithmic foul play. To him, the negatively sloped line we see is a clear sign that the state of Michigan used the “weighted race” voting feature of vote-tallying machines to steal votes from Trump and grant them to Biden.​

​

The thing is, that you’d always expect the negatively sloping line that he describes as “suspicious”, by definition. Think about what he’s plotting. On the X-axis is the % of straight-ticket Republican voters. On the Y-axis is the % of split-ticket Trump voters MINUS the % of straight-ticket Republican voters....​

​

A thought exercise: assume that nobody on a split-ticket ever votes for the major two parties, and they all go third-party like true independents. What would you expect from Ayyadurai’s curve? It would just go down and to the right, by design.​

​

And if a dude is artificially constructing a negatively sloped line in front of your eyes and telling you that this “beautiful, too-perfect line!” is evidence of election fraud, you should run the other way. Because he’s trying to take advantage of your good intentions.​

I purposely avoided searching for "other opinions".. Wanted to do this "blind".. It was hard enough to try to figure out what some of the variables actually were. Because he was treating definitions differently in different slides.

But I kinda suspected that others would join the beat down.. I even TRIED to "make it work" !! Which should give me a couple extra credit points... But I avoided going and grabbing the Michigan County data and re-plotting it..

That would be neurotic and compulsive..

 

[JimBowie1958]

I purposely avoided searching for "other opinions".. Wanted to do this "blind".. It was hard enough to try to figure out what some of the variables actually were. Because he was treating definitions differently in different slides.
But I kinda suspected that others would join the beat down.. I even TRIED to "make it work" !! Which should give me a couple extra credit points... But I avoided going and grabbing the Michigan County data and re-plotting it..
That would be neurotic and compulsive..

I know a guy that has been working on solving his Rubics Cube for the last twenty years. He feels that learning how to do it is cheating somehow.

It was still sitting on top of his office file cabinet last I saw.

 

[flacaltenn]

I purposely avoided searching for "other opinions".. Wanted to do this "blind".. It was hard enough to try to figure out what some of the variables actually were. Because he was treating definitions differently in different slides.
But I kinda suspected that others would join the beat down.. I even TRIED to "make it work" !! Which should give me a couple extra credit points... But I avoided going and grabbing the Michigan County data and re-plotting it..
That would be neurotic and compulsive..

I know a guy that has been working on solving his Rubics Cube for the last twenty years. He feels that learning how to do it is cheating somehow.

It was still sitting on top of his office file cabinet last I saw.

It's a choice.. In Silicon Valley, I met tech managers who banned folks from looking at previous solutions. Think they were more afraid of patent violations than being "scientific" or innovative about it.. But for the simple stuff -- you just make it harder to evaluate if you leap to "searching it"..

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's a choice.. In Silicon Valley, I met tech managers who banned folks from looking at previous solutions. Think they were more afraid of patent violations than being "scientific" or innovative about it.. But for the simple stuff -- you just make it harder to evaluate if you leap to "searching it"..

I guess when you are trying to get 'outside the box' kind of originality it makes sense, but most everyday code is Googled.

Why re-invent the wheel?

 

[flacaltenn]

It's a choice.. In Silicon Valley, I met tech managers who banned folks from looking at previous solutions. Think they were more afraid of patent violations than being "scientific" or innovative about it.. But for the simple stuff -- you just make it harder to evaluate if you leap to "searching it"..

I guess when you are trying to get 'outside the box' kind of originality it makes sense, but most everyday code is Googled.

Why re-invent the wheel?

Because copying is not knowledge of the "problem".. First step is define and understand the problem/issue.. If you dont DO that yourself -- you'll never be able to sort shit from gold by stealing it..

That's why everything I own lately with "smarts" in it -- barely works.. Including my oven..

 

[JimBowie1958]

Because copying is not knowledge of the "problem".. First step is define and understand the problem/issue.. If you dont DO that yourself -- you'll never be able to sort shit from gold by stealing it..
That's why everything I own lately with "smarts" in it -- barely works.. Including my oven..

Well, you can get to such routine functionality that you have already programmed the same kind of thing a hundred times, but typeos, syntactical errors, etc, can make the time tak three times as long, especially if you have to get someone else to promote your code so you can test it (stupid to not let developers have total control of their own schema, but that is a tangent and a half.)